… The point of all this NLI talk is to show 2009-48 is not just a toothless rule, it really doesn’t limit oversigning at all. Bylaws 13.9.2.3 and 15.5.1.10.1 only limit NLIs to 28. The number of scholarship that can be doled out is still unlimited. Programs are still permitted to commit as many scholarships as they want, so long as the NLI is not attached.[Emphasis added.] The twins don’t limit oversigning, they just require some of the oversigned prospects to be free to walk, since the GIA commits the school to the prospect but not the prospect to the school. And by a quirk of NCAA rules, institutions are prohibited from mentioning that they have signed these additional prospects.

Now there’s a loophole just waiting to be exploited. The question is by whom – the coach who’s seemingly run out of room in his signing class, the player who realizes that not signing an NLI allows him to maintain some degree of leverage in his college career or a player’s parent who sees this as an opportunity to explore a bidding process more than once (no doubt Mark Emmert and Mike Slive would cluck disapprovingly about that)?

9 responses to “There’s oversigning… and then there’s really oversigning.”

So let me make sure I understand………. let’s say a school is coming off probation where they were only allowed to have 70 scholarship players, like USC is facing. And let’s say with their graduation class and whatnot that year, they’ll be going into the next year with 50 current players. By this logic, they could actually sign 35 players their first year off probation and get right back to 85, as long as 7 of them came on board without signing an NLI…..is my interpretation correct?

Honestly, the way this reads to me, I don’t understand why a top prospect would even sign an NLI. Sure some coaches would try to take a stand and not allow players to have a scholarship unless they signed the NLI……..but there would be enough coaches out there that if the player is good enough, they’d let it slide.

OK please explain to the non-recruiting folks like me what the heck is GIA? By signing the NLI does that bind an athlete to the school for 1 year or 4 years? How could the NCAA have a rule that won’t allow an athlete to play for one year on transferring but let the school non-renew his scholarship after each year? The more I hear these rules the more I think it is a Plantation System.

I believe GIA stands for “Grant in Aid”, and refers to the scholarship itself, according to the article.

As for the 2nd question, I’m not sure even from reading the article exactly what affect the NLI has after the student is enrolled. It almost sounds like the NLI is what makes them have to sit out a year — but it doesn’t explicitly say that, so I’m not sure. I agree though about your last point though.

Georgia not only gets cheated on the field by oversigning, it gets its name and reputation dragged down by being lumped in with these pathetic, backwoods institutions of the SEC West.
At least Jim Delany’s schools aren’t associated with these embarrassing “schools”.

I’m a duke alum as well as a uga one, so I follow duke hoops. When Elton brand committed to duke, he refused to sign a NLI. Instead, he opted for a GIA. Once he enrolled in school, he became just like everyone else. But up until his first class, he could walk at any time and go anywhere else, without penalty or release. I have always wondered why others don’t do this as it’s a built in safeguard. I believed at the time it was a big deal b/c I thought lots of kids would wake up to the idea of the 1 year scholarship or that they didn’t have to be tied to a school until much later, but no dice. I imagine only the big time guys could have enough leverage to get away with it, but I’m still surprised no one has tried it. Why not keep your options open if you can?